Actually, I didn't make the call on whether or not she should sue. I said: "That doesn't mean they should sue. It would boost the profile of McGinniss and his book and shine a spotlight on his various allegations."

There are pros and cons. It's up to the Palins and their lawyers to figure out what works for them.

In the comments over there, I said: "Well, they know the extent to which the allegations are anywhere near the truth. They need to assess the whole situation. They can pick the statements that they know are absolutely false and run with those. It might work for *only* Bristol to sue, for example."

RH would likely be defended by insurance. It is a big company and the cost of litigation is not a big deal. Book sales would likely spike, just in time for Christmas. Lefties everywhere would be buying McGinniss (while without a lawsuit I doubt sales will be brisk).

A victory for Sarah Palin, however, would be a big deal.

Who knows. Maybe her brother is going to sue. Maybe she is hoping they pull the book on their own since they are embarassed by McGinniss' own admissions and RH probably should not have published in the first place.

But I sure do not see getting involved in a civil suit the thing a serious presidential contender does.

But it would be a two-way street. Joe McGuinness who could get NOTHING by living next door to the Palin's ... would be given DISCOVERY of his own! He'd want all the emails between Sarah and her daughter, Bristol. Plus, a "wide search" where he'd finally be gifted with the materials for a book he wanted to write!

Dunno what her lawyer did. He just sent one of those "threatening type letters" ... usually reserved for clownish neighbors to send to you because your peach tree is dropping peaches in their yard.

WHY did Sarah do this?

The book has been badly reviewed. Joe McGuinness got plenty hurt when he saw these reviews. AND, even if Random House didn't print up lots of copies ... WHO ORDERED THEM? Borders is out of busiess. Placements in bookstore windows don't count for points.

And, then you have to ask ... if she's so hot under the collar about this gossip ... why didn't she sue Andrew Sullivan?

Andrew Sullivan is not worth a Judgement, and he only suspected things as a muckrakers do.

Random House will pay for wantonly repeating rumors after the author admitted that he had no way to tell if any of them was true or not.

Juries can be fair to both sides, but if there is no way to show any reason that any of it could be true then the Jury will say that Random House published this book as an act of actual malice or in a conscious disregard for the injuries done.

Mind you, I'm not a Palin fan, but this was pure recklessness on the part of Random House. I'm betting they were betting that Palin wouldn't sue for Althouse's reasons. Screw that and call their bluff. Markus Dohle is about to lose his job.

"“Further, as Mr. McGinniss waived the attorney client privilege and disclosed to third parties what “Random House Lawyers” told him (he needed sources and the book was not publishable without them), we will also be entitled to review your company’s legal correspondence with Mr. McGinniss and his responses thereto.” "

Maya Mavjee, head of the Crown Publishing Group, is a Person of Color and therefore is not subject to your tired old racist, sexist, imperialist, heteronormative "laws." She recognized a higher truth when it was presented to her, and she decided that mere "facts" should be no obstacle to the sacred mission: preventing the ascent of Pure Evil to the Presidency. The ends justify the means.

lyssalovelyredhead said...Assuming that her case is anywhere near as strong as it looks, I'm sure that there are hundreds of lawyers who would do it not just for the contingency fees, but for the publicity alone. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Palin will sue Maya Mavjee, Random House, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss. That's what you need to do when bringing a lawsuit against more than one person who you think are involved in the slander one way or another. Leave no stone unturned.

In the community of grifters that comprises our professional celebrity crowd, PR is always good. Palin can't possibly win a lawsuit, since our libel laws in this country are a joke. But neither she nor the author of Rogue need to win -- the PR surrounding the book and Palin's reaction are all that they could BOTH have hoped for.

If Palin were actually running for public office, then she'd be in trouble. But why saddle yourself with the constraining role of a politician when you can shoot your mouth off when and where you like and have no consequences except to widen the circle of people who care what you say and do?

I wonder why Random House took the risk of publishing this. Have we gotten so careless about lies and gossip that people think they can say anything without consequence? I hope she wins. I'm sick of the media publishing half truths and outright lies about people with impunity.

It says something about Palin that, no matter what they throw at her, she comes back, punching twice as hard.

She may not become President, but dammit that woman eats nails for breakfast, does not run from bullies, and smiles the whole time.

Random House may discover their fellow lefties pretending not to be their friends anymore at parties, not wanting the stench on their own shoes. Hell, even Maddow won't let McGinniss on her show. He fucked up so badly even Olbermann won't have him.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)How ‘bout this, the threat of a suit, forces RH to PULL McGinnis’ book? NO publicity and NO increased sales….just like A Million Little Pieces FREE publicity for Candidate Palin, vindication and a slap-back at her opponents…a Quadrafecta of Goodness for Sarah…

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Joe, she'll sue all three parties. She'd be a fool not to. Talk to a lawyer Allen, I’d rather talk to Satan than talk to a lawyer….I see your point, I was too simplistic, but by naming RH she applies leverage on the people who actually own the rights to the book and therefore can make it available, AND who have a bit to lose…IF she can brow-beat RH, McGinnis is scr3wed….the owners of the rights to the book will pull it and he won’t be able to profit or offer it as a “self-published’ work….and IF she can get it pulled, in lieu of damages, then anything in the book becomes tainted and simply dismissed….even any true stuff.

Oh and someone mentioned “discovery”…hey reality check here folks, who has the most to lose from “discovery” Palin, who has been ‘scoped, and sued and just had 24,000 e-mails poured over by the LSM OR McGinnis and Random House? I’d say the latter, rather than the FORMER…something for RH and McGinnis to ponder.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Joe, let me put it this way, if you have an operation and the operation goes terribly bad, your lawyer will sue the hospital, the doctors, the nurses, and the people administering the anesthesia Allen, I agree it’s best to be thorough….

I wonder why Random House took the risk of publishing this. Have we gotten so careless about lies and gossip that people think they can say anything without consequence?

Yes, I think that they have, at least when it comes to people who they hate so much they're blind to all else. Which is exactly why Ms. Palin needs to take this action against them. To let them get away with this would be a grave injustice.

(Again, I'm assuming that there's no truth at all to these matters. In the unlikely case that there is, that's a different story.)

Allen S...The little guy is not the one you want to sue. The large Company with insurance is all you need.

The Jury is who you want on your side, and they will feel some sympathy to the old dumb guy who was given money by an evil publisher to go to Alaska and find damaging revelations, but then reported back to them that he had no sources that could be checked out.

So it was the publishing giant throwing the BS book out to the public for money knowing that it was only BS.

You don't need the author to testify against publishing house, and he would lie anyway.

But his sympathetic sincere goofiness schtick might derail the Jury from doing justice if he is the Defendant siting visibly with them in the Court room for weeks.

Palin is always a test for me of people's principles. People who normally would give someone the befit of the doubt, or even admire certain qualities, drop their guard on Palin and show their nasty side.

"...why didn't she sue Andrew Sullivan?"

McGinness moved in next door. You can talk all you want about the grizzly family, but don't step in mamma grizzly's territory. That's what made the difference. The Palin's crapper is gonna be full of bells and pepper.

This guy has an unattractive history, he did this on his own, and it was a creepy thing to do. Jurors will imagine being her (a mother, a family) not him a lonely conniving creep trolling for easy money at a family's expense. Easy case.

traditionalguy said... The little guy is not the one you want to sue. The large Company with insurance is all you need.

No. See my example of an operation gone bad of why you need to sue everyone. Too bad we don't have any lawyers on this blog, they could explain why it is necessary to name everyone in a lawsuit, at least when in the discovery phase.

However, this may not be bad. Many liberals I know "dislike" Sarah Palin and think she spreads hate. They have no idea of the vicious and mean things being said about her and her family. One told me she became ill after reading one website I pointed out to her. She had never heard any of the stories about Trig’s birth. Her view was that only Tea Party Racist did things like that.

Here's why you have to sue everyone. Maya Mavjee and Random House would use the excuse that they did nothing wrong, and that it was McGinniss who misled them into thinking that what he said was accurate.

Looked at all Breitbart has. Sarah should sue and defend her family. I HOPE my daughter turns out like Sarah Palin. Self-made, successful, devoted to her family, etc... Why she is despised my Liberal women is beyond me.

If she sues, how much latitude does Palin have in picking the venue? I suspect that the outcome of the trial may depend on who is on the jury. A jury of Manhattanites might not give the same verdict as a jury composed of people from Alaska or Arizona.

@Lyssa: "(Again, I'm assuming that there's no truth at all to these matters. In the unlikely case that there is, that's a different story.)"

Right. Big assumption. Do people really believe that RH lawyers didn't crawl all over this book? Even before Palin's lawyer sent his letter, this is how McGinniss answered a question about his use of anonymous sources: "Not only my editor, but Random House attorneys verified every source, in some cases speaking directly to the sources themselves. I have dozens of hours of recorded conversations. Random House attorneys listened to them all, then made an independent judgment about the trustworthiness of the sources. No material from an unverified source is included in the book. Many details were omitted for that reason."

McGinniss had six months after he wrote the email in question to try and nail down information. His book didn't include at least one rumor about Todd and prostitution that was mentioned in the email, presumably because he couldn't verify it. You'd think a reckless writer would just go for the whole shebang.

In any case, I found what the named sources said in The Rogue to be much more interesting and damaging than the rumors that have floated around Alaska for years. For example, the head of her security detail, Gary Wheeler, worked with the Republican and the Democratic governors who were her predecessors. His candid assessment of Palin's character and work habits was extremely unflattering. Considering her track record for truthiness in Alaska, I'd believe him long before I'd take her word for anything.

For example, the head of her security detail, Gary Wheeler, worked with the Republican and the Democratic governors who were her predecessors. His candid assessment of Palin's character and work habits was extremely unflattering. Considering her track record for truthiness in Alaska, I'd believe him long before I'd take her word for anything.

Why would you do that? You know nothing about his credibility. For all you know, he might be carrying some grudge against her, or he might oppose her politics and think that the ends justify the means.

I guess if you lefties didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any at all ...

arctos wrote:...the head of her security detail, Gary Wheeler...I'd believe him long before I'd take her word for anything.

Why would you do that? You know nothing about his credibility.

I recall that all of Clinton's security detail as governor stated he had used them to approach the bimbo of his choice at all his speeches and they got the leftovers. They were completely and as usual, dishonestly, trashed by the media, who simply reprinted the press releases attacking them from Clinton's "bimbo eruption squad".

I guess if you lefties didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any at all ...

See, the problem is, leftlings know so little about the entire concept of standards, they probably think you said they have twice as many as conservatives do.

Ms. Palin should contact Catherine McKinnon, who is, (was...) a professor of Law at the University of Michigan and was quite successful in bringing a libel case against the author of a very derogatory book concerning the former head of the Sigmund Freud Institute.

Ms Althouse, would Ms Palin qualify as a "public person" and thus be prevented from bringing suit?

Per its website, "Random House, Inc. is the U.S. division of Random House, the world's largest trade-book publisher, and is owned by Bertelsmann AG, one of the world's foremost media companies."

It would surprise me a great deal if Bertelsmann chose to purchase primary-level liability insurance against defamation claims. That would involve giving up a lot of control to an insurer. Rather, I suspect that Bertelsmann self-insures from $0 up to some large eight- or nine-digit number, above which it might have purchased excess insurance coverage (possibly as syndicated through Lloyds).

Understand, too, that Random House, as publisher, and McGinniss, as author, almost certainly each have had their own lawyers throughout. The vetting that Random House's lawyers did was a due diligence routine that they conduct precisely for the purpose of creating a paper trail to use in defending against potential defamation claims.

What constitutes "reckless disregard of the truth" -- something which is necessary for a public figure to prove as part of a defamation case -- may be very different for an author and for a publisher. McGinniss' assertion that Random House's lawyers have listened to hours of tape, then, means that Random House will be able to present evidence of its own due diligence. But it's entirely possible that when judged by the standards appropriate to professional writers, the very same tapes that were adequate for the publisher's purposes may not have been adequate to rebut a charge of reckless disregard by McGinniss in what he chose to write.

McGinniss' statement about Random House's lawyers, in other words, amounts to him saying the following: "The lawyers for my potential co-defendant, Random House, have created a paper trail on the basis of which they're confident (as they always are, for everything RH publishes) that Random House has not been acting in reckless disregard for the truth, and that Random House will escape any liability for defamation if sued."

That's not at all the same thing as saying that Random House's lawyers have independently verified the truth of any of the things they heard on those tapes.

@ Harrington (9/27/11 5:31 PM): Gov. Palin is absolutely, positively, and without a doubt a "public figure" for purposes of the First Amendment analysis required by New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. But even "public figures" like Gov. Palin can still sue for defamation; being a public figure is not an absolute bar. Instead, public figures have to prove an extra element, beyond merely proving that a statement of fact was false and damaging. The public figure must also prove that the defamatory statement was made with "actual malice," defined in this limited context as the defendant either (a) having subjective knowledge on the part of the author that the statement was false or (b) having acted with reckless indifference to the statement's truth or falsity. If the statement was false but made due to mere negligence, the public figure can't recover.

In this context, then, to win against either McGinniss or Random House in a defamation case, Gov. Palin, as a public figure, would indeed have to prove this sort of "actual malice." It is a high hurdle to leap -- so high that it discourages most public figures from ever suing anyone for defamation -- but it is not an impossible one.